I think you may have mistaken the 'or' used in the stimulus as an exclusive 'or.' However, the 'or' in the stimulus is inclusive, meaning that both of the scenarios described could happen.
We know that either the first vehicle changed lanes w/o signaling OR the second vehicle driving excessive speed. However, it's also possible that both of these things happened.
We know that the First driver changed lanes without signaling, so we know that is sufficient to make him or her liable.
The conclusion states that the second driver is not liable. But how do we know this? What if the second driver was driving in excessive speed? If he or she was, then he or she would also be liable. This is exactly what answer (A) picks up on. With (A), if the second vehicle was being driven at excessive speed, then we know that the second driver is liable as well, which would make the conclusion false. And if the second vehicle was not being driven at excessive speed, then we have good support that the second driver is not liable.
Answer (E) has nothing to do with the liability rules that we're given in the stimulus. The rules governing liability are clearly defined for us, and they do not include any mentioning of whether or not the drive of the second vehicle would have seen the turn signal flashing.
You may have tripped up on (E) because you misunderstood what you were supposed to do regarding interpreting liability. Answer (E) tries to tempt you to bring in your knowledge of the outside world and confuse you into thinking that it makes sense. However, on the LSAT, this is something you do not want to do. Focus solely on the information provided to you in the stimulus when answering the question.
Does this make sense? If you have more questions, let us know!
Julie-VAugust 19, 2019
Can you explain why (C) would be incorrect as well? I thought that the argument was overlooking the possibility that a third factor could have attributed to the accident. Thanks!
